What are your best tips that do NOT involve using software or

-Have your subject lean forward when taking a portrait.
-use colorful balloons on your flashes for playing with colors instead of shilling out for color filters.
-use raw sparingly. You won't need it as much as you think if you shoot right.
-If you're ever shooting groups, just keep talking; saying directions, compliments, anything just run your mouth so they focus on you.
-to resolve camera shake shoot on continuous rapid fire.

>>3016650
Can you be clearer with your last point? I'm not sure I get it.

>>3016519
Mostly for snapshitting/"street"

-get closer to the subject
-fill the frame
-photographs capture a moment in time, that's what you should be looking for
-gear can help but it'll never make you a better photographer
-you can find inspiration outside of photography (books and music generally inspires me to shoot)
-this one might be weird but try reviewing your work or look at other people's works while high (I use weed and adderall (not at the same time)) it won't make you a better photographer but it might help you see things from a different perspective (always write down your thoughts!)
-everyone is different! no two people are exactly the same (this is more life advice but it helps)
-Instagram is home to a lot of great photographers, it might be populated with hipsters, gearfags, and VSCO nerds but you can find a lot of people who suit your style and you can learn from them
-there's no perfect camera or lens, peoples needs/likes are different. Just because you didn't like a camera doesn't mean someone else won't like it or won't take great images with it
-specs aren't everything. Good ISO performance, high megapixels, great glass, 4K video, good dynamic range, and fast autofocus will always lose the fight against shitty composition, bad lighting, and a boring subject

>>3017160

I like all your points but specially the last one. I always tell people when they get into photography to set their cam to auto and just take pics for a few months so they learn composition and light naturally before they start to tinkle with the setting.

Don't just shoot and move on.
Shoot, sure, get it out of your system. But then stop, and think about it. Use a different angle, a different framing. Zoom out and get close, zoom in and walk farther away. Shoot the same thing many times.
You'll rapidly learn when to use what focal lengths and compositions styles when and why.

>>3017160
>>3019041
deluded wannabes. the only reasons possible you avoid tech specs is either you lack of money or you lack of technical understanding, or both.
you'll never develop beyond dillettantish snapshitting when you make it to a philosophy to not deal with the actual medium you are working on.
you are like painter who say "technic? what do I need a technic for? I paint everything straight outta my imagination. it's the creativity that counts and not if my paintings look like made by a 5yo or not."
or imagine a viola player would say something stupid like that.

how can you work in an art discipline and simultanously deny to develop the technic which is needed to do so?

to say it clearly:
- yes, MPs matter
- yes, DR matter (a lot)
- yes, sensor size matters
- yes, ISO performance matters
- yes, glass quality matters
- yes, post processing matters

how can you seriously expect to make a single good shot on par with what this art is capable of, when using a potato and putting your fingers in the ears singing 'lalalalala' as soon as somebody talks about the technology you actually use? (and yes, it us a technology based art .. wtf.)

>>3016650

>use raw sparingly

Lol what?

>>3016901
I think he means if you take like 10 photos at once on rapid fire, at least a few of them won't be shaky

>>3019056
(You)

>>3019056
you dont hear an artist brag about how sharp their pencils is, how many hair strands their brush has, or how finely woven their canvas is, though. youre confusing technical understanding with gearfagging.
if you really know your technique well enough you can get acceptable iq out of any rebel camera with a sorta-cheap prime, shure, its going to be like trying to paint with a brush with only a few strands of hair left, but if youre skilled enough, youll know how to get there eventually.

>>3019109

Painters are SUPER fucking picky about all of that stuff you mentioned. Seriously, hang out on an art forum for a few days and you'll see exactly the same sort of gearfaggotry you see in photography.

>>3019109
As the other anon said correctly, you seem to have never talked to an actual artist. .. maybe this us your problem in general. art is perfectionism. talk it easy is just marketing.

>>3019112
yeah, and a really good painter knows that the brush makes the job easier, but its still possible to do without.
pros dont use cheap cameras because they can afford not to, but theyre still able to get decent results with any heap of plastic you throw their way.

>>3019117
in your understanding of "decent" this is right. but consider that what you find "decent" is a joke for people with an actual sense for art.

:)
>the value of an artwork is dependent on its technical execution, rather than the concepts, ideas and the artists ability to convey those ideas in a compelling manner.

>>3019143
meant to reply to
>>3019120

>>3019143
haha. o you. you are in the content > form trap. or phase. but you will realize that content > form is only valid, I repeat: ONLY valid, when the form is perfect. a whatever good content in a flawed form is nothing. NOTHING. firstly when you mastered the form, THEN you can start to philosophize about that in the end everything is about content.

dude .. you can't to the second step before the first. haha. dude.

>>3019248
not disagreeing on that one, only you are confusing form with technical quality.

Get closer. You think you're close enough? Get closer. You're starting to feel uncomfortable? Get closer. You subject is starting to feel uncomfortable? Get closer. You subject is asking you to please step back? Get closer. You subject is calling the police? Get closer. You subject is starting to power walk away from you? Get closer. Your subject is running at full speed as if their life is depending on it? Get closer. They're laying on the ground with a broken ankle begging you to please just leave them alone? GET. FUCKING. CLOSER. MOTHERFUCKER.

>>3019256
technical quality is a major part of the form of photography.

>>3019056
Consider the following:
Fred uses his A7RII with Batis 25 for the first time. It's his first camera, and he has no idea what he's doing. He walks around and shoots cats and wooden floors, and renders his shitshots in Photoshop. No one cares, shit pictures are shit.

Alfred is an old man who's shot since the film days, and uses a very beaten G1 with the kit lens, because he's an old shit that doesn't care anymore. He goes to the beach and captures great images in motion, with perfect timing and routinely perfect composition. He went there because he knows the light will be good, and because of an epic storm looming on the horizon, dappling his scenes in dynamic light and tossing the sea into life. His shots are timeless, and no one can resist to stop and admire his prints. He didn't even shoot raw!

Yes these technical details matter, but for anyone other than a very highly skilled photographer, they tend to serve nothing but to get in the way of the true skills and lessons needed to be great. Buy the best camera if you can afford it. But don't upgrade, use it into the rubber grips are peeling and the viewfinder is failing. The more you learn and use your camera, the more natural, faster, and easier great shot will come to you. Some people think that they'll only go shooting if they love their gear. But I think the more familiar and "boring" my camera, the more interested I am in what's in front of it. I do love my camera, and the love is a connection that lasts for years and years.

Don't be an upgrade monkey, shoot pictures.

>>3019303
youre the reason photography is still considered an inferior art form. Too many dumb gearfags thinking the key to a great photo is a great camera, a hot model and studio lights.

>>3019469
you are the reason photography is seen as an inferior art form. too many dumb pseudos thinking the key to a great photo is soley the motive or the message or what it transports. you are the reason many people think you don't need and technical skill and quality and that photography is an easy art form whereby it is only about your creativity and inspiration. a year-long schooling? not needed. a deep understanding of the tiniest aspects of how the technic works? not needed. an investment the best tools to work with to achieve that chain of micro-optimization which accumulates to that fine perfection of mastered art? not needed.
noooo, we just run around, put a vintage lens on it, click "muh moment" and call it art.
what you misunderstand is that a painter who throws paint on a canvas with a cucumber, firstly had to master the technic of classic and realistic painting. THEN he can decide to deconstruct for artistic reasons. an amateur working like this is merely an phony apehead.

so tell me, who of us two is desroying the understanding of what the art value of photography is? hm? you horrible hobbyist.

WTF?

This thread asked for specific types of advice. If you don't like it, why post?

Some people really lead miserable lives.

>>3019324

You're right, and here's the other thing. For some people, it's just about taking it easy, carrying you camera around, and enjoying taking photos and wants a tip or two. Not everyone can or is willing to put tons of hours in the hobby.

>>3019581
If my years of experience have taught me anything, it's that this dumb hobbyist is going to take way better photos than this guy. >>3019492

>>3019096

Thanks. Although in that case I prefer to lay down the cam somewhere and use the timer to avoid shaking. It is not always possible tho, if you need your cam at eye level.

>>3019582
He also seems to forget/ignore that every pro was a beginner at first and didn't have super gear all his life.

>>3019492
id like to see what you consider great art, kek.

>>3019492
>>3019588
I second this. Please post some of your work

>>3019303

Muh architectural photography, muh wet concrete, muh verticals

Shoot jpegs until you stop believing stupid dichotomies about jpegs.

>>3019655

Or just shoot so much that you burn yourself out on even caring what your photos look like. ;)

>>3019655
This is a good idea.

>>3019492
>so tell me, who of us two is desroying the understanding of what the art value of photography is? hm?
You, by a considerable margin

>>3019109
You don't have much interaction with artists, do you?

>>3020225
My girlfriend earned a full scholarship for painting a portrait of Chris Hemsworth with nothing but her menstrual blood and a brush constructed with her pubic hair. I know plenty about artists m8.

>>3019324
I was Fred. And I knew I was Fred. I got myself a 3.5k equipment because

a) I could
b) I wanted to get better and was interested in actually learning the stuff
c) I knew it would motivate me while my old shitty cam didn't

Gear is helpful. It's not necessary, but helpful. However, the will to learn and go out there has to come from yourself. A camera doesn't shoot its own pictures. And generally people have gear that is too good/expensive for what they use it.

>>3019469
Photography is absolutely not considered an inferior art form. And guess what, you can be a gear fag AND take great photos. I'd argue that people that have such a hobby for decades are more willing to spend on a cam than people that just take photos of their dogs.

>>3019655
lul. If anything was actually worth the pain, then it was not to shoot jpeg from the beginning. You just develop bad habits instead of making the photo you could make, plus you waste a lot of time.

>>3020248
>shooting jpeg
>more bad habits than raw
heh its always fun to watch newfags go toe-to-toe with isi

>>3020248
>Bad habits
Meticulously perfect exposure habits*

>>3020247
>Photography is absolutely not considered an inferior art form.

lol wut? Yes it is. That's okay, too, because it's still very much in its infancy as an art form. You see all this sanctimony about how everything has already been done in photography, but we've barely even scratched the surface. In a hundred years it will be so advanced and so beautiful and so unrecognizably different that we'll look at today's photography with the same sort of quaint aw-shucks nostalgia which we look at the work of Henry Fox Talbot or Alfred Stieglitz.

File: W1siZiIsIjIxMTA5MSJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDEzNjZ4MTM2Nlx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg (227KB, 1366x1091px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1366x1091px

>>3020346
>quaint aw-shucks nostalgia
>Alfred Stieglitz
Obvious bait, but it must be bitten.
kys you cucking zucc

Try to motivate yourself to shoot by exploring how you've got better since the last time, rather than by buying something and going to try it out. That's to say: your new gadget is yourself since yesterday.

>>3020399

Triggered right in the pussy, I guess.

Hot tip: image review makes you look like a creep for candid shooting. If you take a shot, you'll get much less of a reaction if you don't immediately hunch over your LCD afterwards.

If you miss the shot? Oh well. Figure out what you did wrong and correct for the reshoot. Photography is an iterative process, meaning improvement comes in cycles.

>>3020418

>Caring that you look like a creep

Candid shots at anime cons is an art

>>3020418
>not taking photos with one hand visibly stuffed down your pants to assert your dominance as the alpha male in the social situation

>>3019098
Incorrect, please try again.

>>3019109
Oh, so why is my £11 a tube gouache the type i choose as opposed to the £11 a set? Is it because you're a dumbdumb moron?

>>3019117
But they would be considerably better with the right equipment, i CAN whittle with a flint rock, i get much better results when i use the more modern pocket knife. They both work, byt only one is a sellable product and it's 100% down to using better tools.

>>3019655
Wait, do you even understand the word dichotomy? Jpegs give you less options and are limiting. Everyone but you is in agreement. They're shite and designed for people that don't care for subtle nuance or control over their final image. Great for people that don't have a pc, don't know what they're doing or just don't care.

>>3020283
(you)

>>3020343
A "correct" exposure isn't a "good habit", it's expected, isi's exposure is probably her weakest point.

>>3020433
That's because Isi is a talentless hack. Shooting JPEG is excellent for a beginner, since so many will get very lazy about correcting in post on modern cameras. I skipped it entirely, but that's just because I shot slide film before going digital. Anyone just starting today should definitely use JPEG and their playback histogram while learning the basics of exposure.

Probably for a few months, until they start nailing it on the first shot every time, and learn about saturation/banding/sharpening problems. Once they're good enough to start thinking, "I wish I could do my own sharpening better than this," It's time to move on to raw.

File: IMG_0096.jpg (3MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x960px

I was going to start a new thread since this one had degraded into something different, but I think if I do, it'll just happen again.

Anyway, here's an example of what I mean by interesting sights, like the dog eating an icecream cone.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot S5 IS
Camera Software	Photos 1.5
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:01 16:46:58
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.7
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	960
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_2950.jpg (72KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1920x1080px

This thread is a testament to the rampant autism in the photography community.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3019324
No. You are stupid. You are comparing the wrong things. And this shows exactly your amateutish nature.
You comparsion is like saying "better a good painter with a old pencil than a lumberjack with a new". Huehuehue. YOU DON'T SAY! How CLEVAR you are.

You must compare two equalliy skilled artists. Then give one a walmart 70 cent brush and wall colours while you give the other high-end brushes and top-tier oil-colours. ...

my god, how stupid you all are here. that's like the easiest thing to understand but you deluded fucker WANT to believe it's not about the gear, it's only muh creativity .. because you are horrible poor and unmotivated losers who actually do not even want to produce art and contribute to the world of art in any way. you want to be lazy salesmen who due to their hobby always can think: "Well, I COULD be an artist, but I have reasons. Still I could. But not invest too much. But I could."

>>3020433
Paralysis by analysis will kill you.

>>3020560
Raw is for delusional turd polishers that don't even print their work.

>>3020560
But didn't isi shoot raw for years before jpeg? Maybe she shoots jpeg for ideological reasons.

>>3021247
>but you deluded fucker WANT to believe it's not about the gear
You just lashed out at someone for being heavily reliant on the gear (a fuji) as a creative framework
Do you even realize that you contradict yourself while thrashing about?

>>3021347
go away ken

>>3016650
>use raw sparingly
rockwell detected

File: 1476542789712.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>>3020569
Do you actually think that is a good picture?

>>3021429
>>3021434
>xD I'm not a newfag I fall for Ken Rockwell memes you dip

Hola no saben de algun post de algo extraño

>>3021349
ISIs decisions to shoot JPEG has nothing to do with the valid reasons mentioned. She's just doing her own retarded thing.

>>3020560
>use jpeg first
Why? You don't become a better chef using a blunt knife.

>>3021247
Of course they say "gear doesn't matter" most people here are either in school or neets, they don't want to feel like they can't compete because they can't afford to. Also, most of them won't have even touched expensive gear.

>>3021347
Lol, spot the kid that's never been in a darkroom. I'd rather nudge a slider than get through $10 worth of paper finding the contrast and exposure I'm after.

>>3021349
You ever tried opening a 24mp raw on a laptop so old it's in early noughties silver plastic trim? She lives in a non-moving trailer ffs.